4K IPS G-SYNC (Asus RoG SWIFT PG27AQ)

K

Knil

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
286
Last edited:
Depending on the price this might actually be a really interesting monitor for me (for older games and blu-rays).
 
If a G-sync monitor has 60hz refresh will it work on Games but not Windows Desktop or something?
 
Comixbooks said:
If a G-sync monitor has 60hz refresh will it work on Games but not Windows Desktop or something?
Click to expand...

What? It will work the same as other current G-sync displays, where it needs games to be in exclusive fullscreen mode in order to work.
 
Just wondering because the ROG is 144hz was wondering where G-sync will be noted.
 
G-sync only works on a fullscreen game, there no reason for G-sync to work on the desktop besides window mode gaming.
 
Acer's 4k g sync TN monitor costs $800. This being IPS and with the ROG branding is easily going to run over $1000. I wonder if next year's CES we will see and ROG 4k 144hz g sync monitor with ULMB using DP 1.3 :D
 
Unless you simply want to have the options available having ULMB and Gsync and 144Hz does you no real good as Gsync can't be used with ULMB and Gsync doesn't play nicely with 144Hz either (and why pay for shit you won't/can't use all at once) Just stick with 120Hz and either Gsync or ULMB - either at that refresh rate is more than adequate, but who am I to judge and make commentary, I'm still one of the "lowly scum" who is content with my 60Hz 21:9 monitors.
 
Papaj said:
Unless you simply want to have the options available having ULMB and Gsync and 144Hz does you no real good as Gsync can't be used with ULMB and Gsync doesn't play nicely with 144Hz either (and why pay for shit you won't/can't use all at once) Just stick with 120Hz and either Gsync or ULMB - either at that refresh rate is more than adequate, but who am I to judge and make commentary, I'm still one of the "lowly scum" who is content with my 60Hz 21:9 monitors.
Click to expand...

Yep you can't use g sync with ULMB but it's still pretty good to have both options. If your frame rate is fluctuating around well below 120 then ULMB won't do you any good in that situation and on the other hand if you're playing a game where you're getting hundreds of fps then g sync is the one that won't help much and you'd probably be better off with 120hz ULMB at that point.
 
Papaj said:
Unless you simply want to have the options available having ULMB and Gsync and 144Hz does you no real good as Gsync can't be used with ULMB and Gsync doesn't play nicely with 144Hz either (and why pay for shit you won't/can't use all at once) Just stick with 120Hz and either Gsync or ULMB - either at that refresh rate is more than adequate, but who am I to judge and make commentary, I'm still one of the "lowly scum" who is content with my 60Hz 21:9 monitors.
Click to expand...
Citation needed.
 
Armenius said:
Citation needed.
Click to expand...

Go to the ROG Swift thread on these forums? There's gotta be at least 10 pages worth of bitching and sad emoticons about how their monitors flip shit whenever they have Gsync and try to boost it to 144Hz.I'm not sifting through 200 pages to find examples, but I do remember around pages 124-128 there being a lot of general disdain over frustrations with 144Hz. Maybe it wasn't all related to Gsync or maybe it was just one guy who likes to bitch about everything perpetuating his misfortunes. Either way "doesn't play nice" and "doesn't work at all" are different, but yea, not sifting through 200 pages for that.
 
MistaSparkul said:
Yep you can't use g sync with ULMB but it's still pretty good to have both options. If your frame rate is fluctuating around well below 120 then ULMB won't do you any good in that situation and on the other hand if you're playing a game where you're getting hundreds of fps then g sync is the one that won't help much and you'd probably be better off with 120hz ULMB at that point.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't ULMB do you any good below 120fps? When I had the Swift my games certainly weren't running at 120 fps but they were still greatly blur reduced.
 
Papaj said:
Go to the ROG Swift thread on these forums? There's gotta be at least 10 pages worth of bitching and sad emoticons about how their monitors flip shit whenever they have Gsync and try to boost it to 144Hz.I'm not sifting through 200 pages to find examples, but I do remember around pages 124-128 there being a lot of general disdain over frustrations with 144Hz. Maybe it wasn't all related to Gsync or maybe it was just one guy who likes to bitch about everything perpetuating his misfortunes. Either way "doesn't play nice" and "doesn't work at all" are different, but yea, not sifting through 200 pages for that.
Click to expand...

Been using g-sync at 144hz exclusively since I got the monitor without any issues.

There was something about your video card not down clocking properly at the desktop in 144hz mode but back in my day video cards never down clocked anyway, and I got along just fine!
 
I may be off but I am of the opinion that 4k is great but should never be on anything South of 30"
 
VulcaN said:
Been using g-sync at 144hz exclusively since I got the monitor without any issues.

There was something about your video card not down clocking properly at the desktop in 144hz mode but back in my day video cards never down clocked anyway, and I got along just fine!
Click to expand...

Must've just been general 144Hz issues then or bad modules/panels, that I absolutely know happened (bad panels and people with shit tier DP cables). Either way I feel 144Hz is unnecessary, especially on a 4K panel, unless you like playing exclusively monolithic games with $1k+ graphics card setups. At which point I have to walk away from any arguments because I'll start resorting to name calling.
 
jaguax said:
Why wouldn't ULMB do you any good below 120fps? When I had the Swift my games certainly weren't running at 120 fps but they were still greatly blur reduced.
Click to expand...

Maybe I didn't use the best words for it. ULMB would work best if you can constantly match your frame rate to the strobing refresh rate of 120/100/85 but if you can't then it's not necessarily the end of the world, it just doesn't give the best results. So yeah it's not that it won't do you any good it won't be the most optimal, much like how g sync won't give the best results if your frame rate is already sky high past the refresh rate limit.
 
Papaj said:
Must've just been general 144Hz issues then or bad modules/panels, that I absolutely know happened (bad panels and people with shit tier DP cables). Either way I feel 144Hz is unnecessary, especially on a 4K panel, unless you like playing exclusively monolithic games with $1k+ graphics card setups. At which point I have to walk away from any arguments because I'll start resorting to name calling.
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't even think displayport would support 4K @ 144hz just from bandwidth limits
 
pixel count isnt everything, I consider 4k bad, for a start it slows games down due to extra GPU power needed to render at that res, give me 1080p version please.
 
chrcoluk said:
pixel count isnt everything, I consider 4k bad, for a start it slows games down due to extra GPU power needed to render at that res, give me 1080p version please.
Click to expand...

Pixel count isn't everything, but 1080p screens looks terrible once you get used to high ppi screens on all your devices.
 
Knil said:
Pixel count isn't everything, but 1080p screens looks terrible once you get used to high ppi screens on all your devices.
Click to expand...

Except that's wrong, 1080p is completely fine on 24", and 1440p has perfect ppi for 27".

They should push display technology forward not the pixel count. I guess display companies just don't have anything to offer at this point and would rather add more pixels to compensate for this.

When we will see 200hz+ OLED monitors with programmable hardware lut? :D
 
Knil said:
1080p screens looks terrible once you get used to high ppi screens on all your devices.
Click to expand...

Sadly this is true of every good display feature, most of which are not simultaneously obtainable:
  • CRT geometry, pixel sharpness and flicker look horrible once you get used to CFL LCDs
  • LCD sample-and-hold looks horrible once you get used to CRTs or strobed backlights
  • 16:9 looks horrible once you get used to 16:10
  • VA color looks horrible once you get used to CRTs or IPS
  • Under 30" looks horrible once you get used to 30"
  • 60 Hz looks horrible once you get used to 120+ Hz
  • 100 dpi looks horrible once you get used to 200+ dpi
  • ...

My 40-45" 8k@120+ Hz IPS over DP 1.3+DSC and with Adaptive-sync and adaptive strobing will probably never come, but I can dream.
 
27" meh.

Samsung UE850 32" 4K IPS Freesync is closer to the ultimate display.

My dream would be something like the A full LED backlit (HP Dreamcolor Z32X?) 4K IPS display with Gsync/Freesync. Would probably cost like $4000 though.
 
Someone's going to release a 32 inch 4k g sync IPS eventually whether it's Acer or Asus or BenQ or whoever. At least I hope so...
 
I would say stay on topic but it appears this topic is about dead for the time being. Pretty much everything I find googling this monitor is from back in January...
 
Is there any more news on this? I think this is what I am waiting for.
 
dpoverlord said:
I may be off but I am of the opinion that 4k is great but should never be on anything South of 30"
Click to expand...

It all depends on how far away you sit from the monitor. At four feet or less, which I imagine most people fall in to, 4K is fine at this size.

resolutions-worth-it-comparison.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top